According to Case Law

According to case law

According to Case Law

According to case law

Referring to the constitutional jurisprudence, the principle of the adjudicated thing includes not only the injunctions of the enacting clause of the court decision but also the verification of the facts and the application of the law, defined in the descriptive reasoning part of the decision, provided that they were committed to give the court decision and to belong to the facts or relations that have formed the object of the trial on which the court has given its decision.

One of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty, which, among other things, requires that where the courts have finally ruled on a particular issue, their decision should not be discussed or questioned.9 10.1. Thus, the court notes that Gj.E.D.Nj. in the case of Kehaya and others vs. Bulgaria ” said among other things that”in the view of the court, the principle based on which a final decision is a matter of judgment and resolves the dispute between the parties with a final decision is a fundamental element of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention in civil matters. The principle of legal certainty dictates that when the courts thoroughly revise a civil dispute, it must be settled once and for all.

In this sense, the state’s constitutional duty to organize the courts thoroughly review a civil dispute the adjudicated matter in support of the principle of legal certainty of final court decisions10. Thus, the final court decision that constitutes an adjudicated thing is an expression and concretion of the right over the legal relationship and aims to clarify and security to this relationship.

Violation of the principle of the adjusting the violation of the constitutional and laliasrindicatertertilesand intents guara protesty Article 451 mention the legathing’s principletitute res indicates it is related to the integrity, sovereignty and independence of the judiciary. Article 142/3 of the Constitution provides that “Statobligedare obliged in dictate court decisions.”. Then Article 145/3 of the Constitution provides that.

Simultaneously, in the basic principles of state organization in the Republic of Albania, Article 7 of the Constitution provides that “The government system in the Republic of Albania is based on the division and balance between the legislative, executive and judicial powers.” Interpreted together. Integrally, these provisions imply that court decisions are binding on the state authorities. Others and none of them will be able to dictate this decision-making as if none of them can disregard this decision-making, and none of them will be able to change or overturn this decision-making.

Otherwise, we would be violating the judiciary’s independence just as we would be undermining it vis-.-Vis the powers to unjustly usurp the natural power of the ability to administer justice. This means that other authorities in the Republic of Albania are obliged to execute court decisions and never question their validity or legality. Moreover, the adjudicated thing is so resistant to any state attempt to change or nihilism it that it has immunity even to subsequent legal changes (ius supervenience), which can not modify or extinguish a final court decision but can to act from the date of entry into force in the future, as these decisions are binding on the state itself and are subject to the conditions of exclusion and pre-exclusivity for any means or the possibility of access.

To give the full meaning of the concept, for study, we will also address the CJ or CC’s position regarding the principle of adjudicated matter and final decisions in criminal decisions. The classes between the two processes overlap despite the differences between them. The decision included in the study is being treated mostly as it has also resolved and unified the concept of an adjudicated thing, final decision, and the decision of the High Court invested through recourse as a common means of appeal.

The Court of Appeals for Serious Crimes, in decision no. 55, dated 30.12.2013, among others, argues: The primary meaning of a final decision is that the power of the court has already ended because the case has been tried “The essence of which consists in the need to ensure, at a particular moment clarity and legal stability, obtained this with the completion of the process while in the criminal plan it marks the beginning of the statute of limitations for the execution of the sentence, ( article 68 of the Criminal Code), in the illegal procedural plan it reflects the impossibility of newly adjudicating the same case charged to the same person.

Our Criminal Code does not have a definition on the final decision. Still, both about tradition and other systems there is a universally accepted definition about this concept as a decision which for some reason is irreversible, immutable, invulnerable except by extraordinary means such as in review institute.

In essence, a final decision implies a decision which cannot be revoked and cannot be changed. He has character
1) mandatory, as it takes on the nature of the law on the specific issue and is compulsory for all about the part of the provisions;
2) stable, because it can not differ from any other state structure and any other decision-making be it and the court that has given the decision except in the manner expressly defined in law; and
3) exclusive, as it is an expression of the fact that there is a state attitude that prohibits reconsideration for specific behavior of an individual, therefore, means res judicature.

The terms “final decision” and “adjudicated thing” despite being different in terms of a formal definition coincide in the fact that an issue which constitutes the unity of a specific and identified criminal conduct with the identified person, is considered that it has been tried and can not be retried, i.e. “thing judged” except when in this case the court has reached a final decision. In terms of the terminology “enforceable decision” which, although not found in criminal procedural legislation, is present in the vocabulary used by jurisprudence and has a particular connection with the concept of “final decision”.

This is because a final decision becomes final only when it becomes irrevocable, i.e. final. But in addition to these decisions, there are cases when the law itself, the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the executive capacity of a non-final criminal decision. These are cases that are mainly related to personal or property security measures. So from what I explained above the term “enforceable decision” is broader than the word “final decision” for the very reason that the decision may be enforceable for a category of court decisions even when they have not become final.

Also, the importance of this criminal decision is related to the fact that it deals with the difference between the final decision and the enforceable decision. Two lines of attitude are maintained towards the issues raised, creating confusion that causes a clash between traditional concepts and fundamental principles. Who must operate in a state governed by the rule of law? A line gives way to the view that the final decision is the decision which can no longer be appealed only through the institute of review according to article 449 of the Criminal Code.

This leads to the conclusion that if an appeal has been lodged against the appellate court’s final / merits decision, this decision cannot be absolute and therefore cannot be enforceable. In addition to a part of our practice, the European Court of Human Rights has followed this line in some of Albania’s decisions. The other line gives a direction to the view that the findings of the court of appeal (except for the cases provided in article 431 of the Criminal Code) are final decisions.

This line is based on the provisions and interpretations of a series of constitutional provisions or the Criminal Code or that there are not enough provisions that would argue the opposite. What ensures the maintenance of the balance of principles in a two-tier system is the extraordinary nature of the legal or factual review of a decision. In my opinion, the current regular review is not such [unique]. The analysis shows that Albanian criminal justice’s current system is an inorganic mixture between the systems, specifically between the inherited two-tier system and the three-tier system adopted mainly by the Italian Criminal Code.

The debates on the principle of adjudication in Albania are related because the appeal decisions are considered final, even though the court decision has been recused. Given that there is no appeal against the High Court’s conclusion, regardless of how it has disposed of it about the case under consideration, its decision is final. On the other hand, any of its findings, other than the rejection of the recourse and the leaving in force of the case’s final decision under consideration, brings a new judicial will, which by nature is indisputable, i.e. of the form of cut.

The High Court decision will also be considered a final decision for the resolution of the case under consideration. Regarding this decision as final, there is no doubt that the declaration of that decision is related to all the consequences or other institutions that are conditioned by that decision.
The Joint Panels of the High Court (“Joint Panels” or “Court”) note that the term “final form” is mentioned forty times in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Although none of these provisions provides a clear definition of what is meant by the term in question, the concept of finality in legal doctrine relates, at first sight, to the immutability and binding force of a judicial decision, which is a direct effect of the principle of legal certainty.

Of course, a court decision, like any kind of decision-making in all areas, can be wrong. For this reason, the legislator, due to the importance of the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals in the criminal process (but also in civil or administrative) has provided safeguards mechanisms enabling review control, both for the basis and for the legality of the final decision of the courts of the first instance. In this sense, a higher court review of a criminal decision is considered an integral part of the right to a fair trial, reducing the possibility of error and increasing the “fairness” of the illegal decision. However, the prosecution cannot go on indefinitely.

This would be contrary to other principles of the right to a fair trial, such as the principle of legal certainty and practice within a reasonable time. Hence, there is a need to find a balance between these principles, having a justice system not only qualitative but also efficient.
In analyzing the meaning of the term “final form”, the United Colleges consider that in terms of methodology, the fairest approach would be the one related to the effects of the “final form”, which have to do with the exhaustion of ordinary means of appeal or the expiration of time limits for their exercise.

This is the definition chosen not only in many legislation similar to the Albanian one but also in international agreements to which the Albanian state is a Party. Thus, in defining “final decision”, the Explanatory Report of the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Decisions (Explanatory Report) provides about Article 1 that “The decision must be final. A decision is final if, according to traditional expression, it has gained the power of res judicature.

This is when the decoder is irrevocable, which means when there are no further usual means available or when the parties have consumed such or allowed the deadline to expire without filing an appeal … “The court notes that, although the term “adjudicated thing” is widely used in doctrine – and to some extent in jurisprudence – this term is not found anywhere in Albanian criminal and procedural legislation. The first question that arises is whether the “adjudicated thing” coincides with the expression “final form”, found in domestic legislation. For this, the court will be based on the above definition, to determine the relevant provisions in domestic legislation that provide for exhaustion cases of ordinary means available and the expiration of the time limit without appeal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *